(123) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.03.2026 M/S GANESH CLOTH HOUSE AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners Vs.

RAVISH KUMAR MALHOTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 12.02.2026, whereby the application filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for recall of the order dated 28.01.2026 was allowed, and Ravish Kumar Malhotra was permitted to offer himself for cross-examination.

2. Briefly stated, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (who are the petitioners in the present proceedings) instituted an ejectment petition seeking eviction from the demised premises. The petitioners/defendants entered appearance and contested the said petition. Issues were framed vide order dated 07.08.2025. Thereafter, the respondents were afforded more than twenty-five opportunities to lead their evidence, including opportunities granted subject to costs, including a last opportunity. However, despite repeated opportunities, they failed to conclude their evidence. Consequently, vide order dated 28.01.2026, the evidence of the respondents/petitioners was closed. Subsequently, the respondents filed an application dated 02.02.2026 seeking recall of the order dated 28.01.2026. In support of the application, they annexed a medical document purporting that Respondent No. 1 had suffered a soft tissue injury on the right leg and had been advised rest. The said application was contested by the present petitioners. Upon consideration, the learned Court below allowed the application vide the impugned order dated 12.02.2026, subject to ₹

costs of 500/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed challenging its legality and validity.

3. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record carefully.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the medical certificate produced by the respondents is false, fabricated, and a procured document, and therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the same. It is submitted that the said certificate is not supported by any contemporaneous treatment record, X-ray report, or medical bills evidencing purchase of prescribed medicines. It is further argued that no affidavit of the concerned medical officer has been placed on record to substantiate the genuineness of the alleged ailment or to establish the veracity of the certificate relied upon by the respondents. In the absence of such supporting material, the document is rendered unreliable and cannot be treated as a valid ground for seeking recall of the order. Learned counsel further contended that the respondents have already been granted more than twenty-five opportunities to lead their evidence, including opportunities subject to costs, which clearly demonstrates repeated non-compliance and dilatory tactics adopted by them. Despite such repeated indulgence, they failed to avail the opportunities granted to them in accordance with law. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the learned Rent Controller was not justified in allowing the application for recall of the order dated 28.01.2026, as the same amounts to granting undue indulgence and effectively reopening the case without any sufficient or bona fide cause being shown.

5. As per the order dated 28.08.2025, AW-1 Ravish Kumar Malhotra was examined-in-chief, and his cross-examination was deferred at the request of the counsel for the petitioners/respondents. Thereafter, despite being granted multiple opportunities, the respondents/petitioners failed to conclude their evidence. Consequently, their evidence was ordered to be closed. By the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller allowed the application and granted one opportunity to the petitioner to be cross- examined,